Tuesday, June 07, 2016

Marginal Revolution inadvertently demonstrates why both NRx and the #AltRight are rapidly growing at the expense of progressivism and conservatism by attempting to define neo-reaction while failing to grasp how completely modern liberalism has failed the West:

1. “Culturism” is in general correct, namely that some cultures are better than others. You want to make sure you are ruled by one of the better cultures. In any case, one is operating with a matrix of rule.

2. The historical ruling cultures for America and Western Europe — two very successful regions — have largely consisted of white men and have reflected the perspectives of white men. This rule and influence continues to work, however, because it is not based on either whiteness or maleness per se. There is a nominal openness to the current version of the system, which fosters competitive balance, yet at the end of the day it is still mostly about the perspectives of white men and one hopes this will continue. By the way, groups which “become white” in their outlooks can be allowed into the ruling circle.

3. Today there is a growing coalition against the power and influence of (some) white men, designed in part to lower their status and also to redistribute their wealth. This movement may not be directed against whiteness or maleness per se (in fact some of it can be interpreted as an internal coup d’etat within the world of white men), but still it is based on a kind of puking on what made the West successful. And part and parcel of this process is an ongoing increase in immigration to further build up and cement in the new coalition. Furthermore a cult of political correctness makes it very difficult to defend the nature of the old coalition without fear of being called racist; in today’s world the actual underlying principles of that coalition cannot be articulated too explicitly. Most of all, if this war against the previous ruling coalition is not stopped, it will do us in.

4. It is necessary to deconstruct and break down the current dialogue on these issues, and to defeat the cult of political correctness, so that a) traditional rule can be restored, and/or b) a new and more successful form of that rule can be introduced and extended. Along the way, we must realize that calls for egalitarianism, or for that matter democracy, are typically a power play of one potential ruling coalition against another.

5. Neo-reaction is not in love with Christianity in the abstract, and in fact it fears its radical, redistributive, and egalitarian elements. Neo-reaction is often Darwinian at heart. Nonetheless Christianity-as-we-find-it-in-the-world often has been an important part of traditional ruling coalitions, and thus the thinkers of neo-reaction are often suspicious of the move toward a more secular America, which they view as a kind of phony tolerance.

6. If you are analyzing political discourse, ask the simple question: is this person puking on the West, the history of the West, and those groups — productive white males — who did so much to make the West successful? The answer to that question is very often more important than anything else which might be said about the contributions under consideration.

Already I can see (at least) four problems with this point of view. First, white men in percentage terms have become a weaker influence in America over time, yet America still is becoming a better nation overall. Second, some of America’s worst traits, such as the obsession with guns, the excess militarism, or the tendency toward drunkenness, not to mention rape and the history of slavery, seem to come largely from white men. Third, it seems highly unlikely that “white men” is in fact the best way of disambiguating the dominant interest groups that have helped make the West so successful. Fourth, America is global policeman and also the center of world innovation, so it cannot afford the luxury of a declining population, and thus we must find a way to make immigration work.

The six points of description are largely correct, so I will content myself with responding to what he sees as the four problems with the neo-reactive point of view.

America is not becoming a better nation. The American nation has been invaded and swallowed up by a liberal multicultural empire that is distinctly inferior in almost every way to the nation it has conquered and suppressed.

This is blatant stupidity. Slavery was never a white invention and most rape in the USA is committed by blacks. White gun violence rates are equal to Holland; blacks are entirely responsible for the high US gun violence rates. The USA has no tendency towards drunkenness; at 9.2 liters per capita per year, it consumes less alcohol on average than nearly every European nation and ranks 46th globally.

This isn't even an argument, let alone a convincing one. It's an appeal to personal incredulity combined with political correctness. Whether it seems highly unlikely or not, the fact is that an absence of white men has reliably correlated with a failure to imitate the successes of white culture.

America doesn't have to be a global policeman and there is no way to "make immigration work". Innovation is not about numbers; see Scotland and the Industrial Revolution for just one obvious example.

This is not a serious critique, let alone a convincing one. If these are the "problems" with neo-reaction, then obviously we should all be neo-reactionaries. Tyler Cowen is more intelligent than the average cuckservative, but he is still too cucky to abandon his emotional commitment to equalitarianism.

Every philosophy must sooner or later choose to accommodate or reject reality. Progressivism, liberalism, libertarianism, and conservatism all require the rejection of readily observable reality. They are intrinsically dyscivic, and worse, dyscivilizational. That is why they are doomed to eventual failure and irrelevance.

192 Comments:

With regards to #5; I perceive a wide-ranging field of views. It would probably be best stated that neo-reaction is skeptical of corrupted Christian churches preaching false doctrine rather than suggest that it is skeptical of Christianity in the abstract. There are a lot of neo-reaction voices who are very traditional Christians, on the other hand.

There are a lot of big words in this half-educated analysis, but what stands out again is the same central misdiagnosis that "white males" are motivated because of some sort of power loss or threat to their wealth, to their "stuff."

This is wildly wrong.

The vast majority of European-American men I know with status, wealth and power are fully paid members of the club.

The vast majority of European-American men I know who are dissidents are motivated--clearly, blindingly obviously motivated--by the loss of COMMUNITY.

It's not about power. It's about losing a precious, high-trust community.

"5. Neo-reaction is not in love with Christianity in the abstract, and in fact it fears its radical, redistributive, and egalitarian elements. Neo-reaction is often Darwinian at heart. Nonetheless Christianity-as-we-find-it-in-the-world often has been an important part of traditional ruling coalitions, and thus the thinkers of neo-reaction are often suspicious of the move toward a more secular America, which they view as a kind of phony tolerance."

One major thing that genuinely connects old-school, un-PC Biblical Christianity with Fascism is certain amount of misanthropic pessimism. (Antifas in Europe have actually started to label the Far Right as "misanthropic" for its lack of faith in the boundless potential of human nature.) Christianity that has not been watered down believes in the depravity of fallen men (and women), being in that regard actually even more hardcore than ancient pagans who conceived them morally neutral.

Wyndham Lewis, a Fascism-sympathizing British artist, could write thus in the 1930s:

http://www.thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=1298307&postcount=341

"The importance of Original Sin, apart from its theological bearing, is that it puts man in his place. This can be explained in a few words, and I will do so.

There are two ways of regarding mankind. One is Mr. H.G. Wells' way, which is summed up in the title of one of his books, Men Like Gods. The other is that of the theologian, who, believing in a High God, has no very high opinion of Man. For the latter, Man is a pretty poor specimen, who requires a great deal of brushing up before you can make him at all presentable.

A famous French writer, called Jean-Jacques Rousseau – the 'father of European Socialism' – taught that Man was essentially good. Mr Wells, Mr. Shaw, and most people in fact in England believe that.

Christian theology teaches the opposite. For it, Man is essentially bad. But, in theology, there is a reason for Man being bad. He is bad because he 'fell'. The doctrine of Original Sin is the doctrine, of course, of 'the Fall'.

You may believe that Man is bad without being a theologian. And then of course you mean something different by the term 'bad'. How much Hulme's terminology was theological I do not know. I should not have supposed it was very theological.

Now why everyone was so impressed with Hulme's discovery of the doctrine of Original Sin was because that doctrine contradicted the unpleasant idolatry of Man (which you do not have to be a theologian to get a bit sick of). It refuted the modernist uplift. It denied that man was remarkable in any way, much less 'like a god' or capable of unlimited 'advance'."

And likewise Arthur Schopenhauer, the great apostle of pessimism and one of the first important "Secular Right" figures in European history (Nietzsche started out as his follower), noted that the vulgar optimism of Progressive ideology fundamentally contradicted true Christianity:

"People have always been very discontented with governments, laws, and public institutions; for the most part, however, this has been only because they have been ready to blame them for the wretchedness which pertains to human existence as such. But this misrepresentation has never been put forward in more deceitful and impudent a fashion than it is by the demagogues of the present day. As enemies of Christianity, they are optimists: And according to them the world is “an end in itself,” and thus in its natural constitution an altogether splendid structure, a regular abode of bliss. The colossal evil of the world which cries against this idea they attribute entirely to governments: If these would only do their duty there would be Heaven on earth, i.e. we could all, without work or effort, cram ourselves, swill, propagate, and drop dead – for this is a paraphrase of their “end in itself” and the goal of the “unending progress of mankind” which in pompous phrases they never weary of proclaiming. (154)"

Wonder how old the author is? Despite the constant repetition of "slavery is the white man's fault and he must be held accountable" in all parts of the media and education system (a remake of Roots is on television - or was - in June and not February), that is starting to wear thin. If the Holocaust card has become weaker with age, that one has got to be getting darn thin. Kids see plenty of wealthy blacks - hell, Hollyweird tries to spin things as every fourth doctor, lawyer, computer genius or politician is black - and are then told that blacks are oppressed?

Our horrible fascination with guns... no, it is a tradition of being an armed society of free men instead of a society of disarmed peasants. This clown is really out of his depth.

History, European, and ergo American revolves around one thing:Did Jesus rise from the dead, or didn't He?To the extent white men filled the Earth with this knowledge, forensic legal jurisprudence common law fact, we win, always won and will always win.

Jesus, the Jewish Messiah, dominates all history. Always has, always will. Deal with facts. Start with the biggest.

Vox, you are a conservative. You are pro second amendment, probably against gay marriage, opposed to legalization of pot, and prostitution, will typically vote republican, theologically conservative etc. I could go on and on. I remember reading you in World Net Daily and you claimed not to be a conservative. I would read your articles and think here is someone espousing conservative principles and claiming not to be one. It's silly somantic b.s. Love this blog by the way I view it every day and I'm looking forward to your next full fantasy novel.

Vox, you are a conservative. You are pro second amendment, probably against gay marriage, opposed to legalization of pot, and prostitution, will typically vote republican, theologically conservative etc. I could go on and on.

No, I am not conservative. I am pro-legalization of drugs and prostitution and have never voted for a Republican for president, just to give two examples.

@Paul LutgenI would read your articles and think here is someone espousing conservative principles and claiming not to be one.

The difference - and the problem, really - is that the vast majority Vox's views are what conservatives' ought to be. And what the conservatives like to claim their beliefs are.

But the people that everyone else labels and accepts as "conservative" readily do not accept those premises. They flee from actually accepting and acting on those premises they claim to believe. Thus, we cannot and should not use the label conservative, as it's completely inaccurate and would be disingenuous.

Half a century ago, a mass of leftists crossed to the "right" because of communism, but they were never really comfortable there; so they did their best to remake conservatism as a sort of "liberalism with limits" that they hoped would retain many of the ideals of liberalism yet allow for a free market. Now we're seeing them (or their descendants) move back to the left, and we get to watch them rationalize it in real time.

Last I checked, Vox had been read out of the Conservative camp. Which was kind of odd since he was more libertarian than conservative. His positions as happen with many, have changed over time, but I don't recall him being a strict "conservative" even when I read his entries at WND. Reading and comprehension are two different things that do not necessarily occur together.

As of late, I have been referring to myself as a libertarian nationalist. I am no longer opposed to the use of force to expel the invading hordes, especially Muslims.

Unless we protect what internal liberty we have remaining, we will lose it. We can't protect our internal liberty by continuing to allow outside forces to come in and destroy it. Once we rid ourselves of the threats we already allowed in and secure the exterior, we can begin to correct the problems that led us to where we are today.

Next time you think anti-racist means something more than anti-white read Josh Silver's racial theorizing, they got racial theorizing down into their minds like breathing, it is natural.

Anyway Cowen and Co. are there to legitimize the Left and give the Left authority to the vast swath of producers. Obviously we are drifting towards a 4GW crisis of legitimacy of authority and Cowen wants the tax slaves to buckle down and make more stuff using White Man Magic, NOPE.

Keep up the anti-white narrative it only makes me hate more. But that was always the point wasn't it. To create the new "far right". For a great clash of civilizations, and out of that more stories/lies to prop up the war mongerers, and greed merchants.

Its getting exciting now.

Get your money on "radical Islamic attacks if Brexit occurs, then a far right response, both fake, false flags. The intention is a great cull of the human herd.

Up until recently, the Republicans who bought into political correctness, globalism, and immigration inundation were called 'GOPe' or 'GOP establishment' and Republicans chasing the pipe dream of black or hispanic votes were called 'cuckservatives' whereas those of us who were in favor of limited government of free, armed men, property rights, secure borders with limited (or no) immigration, Christianity, masculine and feminine roles distinct, were called 'Conservative'.

But everyone here recently has been calling the pro-minority-vote open-borders globalists 'conservative' and attributing to me (and everyone who calls himself conservative) a flock of policy positions the mere opposite of our beliefs.

Mr. Wright, I'd propose an analogy using the word faggot. It no longer conveys the meaning of a "bundle of sticks", though that is still a technically correct definition. The word "conservative" has become just a tainted as the word "faggot" as far as being a useful and meaningful description.

James Dixon wrote:> before europeans invented it as such, slavery was not a condition that was defacto inherited from parent to child.

Now, there you may have a valid point. I'd have to do some research to verify it though.

The Arabs were smarter than those evil europeans. They made sure their slaves could not procreate. They got young black males and chopped off their man-zone. Millions died from that, and millions more died during transportation to Islamic lands. Puts the Holocaust to shame.

As as conservative, I solemnly assure you that Vox is not conservative.

He is what one might call a nationalist libertarian: he believes in nearly all the libertarian party line (the state shall make no law save those to deter violence and fraud), except on issues of racial integration, laissez-faire free trade, and open borders.

Vox believes that free trade with a slave state like China merely drives down wages at home, and acts as a transfer of wealth to slavedrivers in China.

He is a zionist (believes the jews should have their own homeland) and a white separatist (believes Europeans are a de facto race which should have its own homeland) Rather, he believes the white race at one time had its own homeland here in the USA which is now compromised by open borders and decades of foolish immigration policy.

In addition to what Orville said, it's become tainted because of how many self-styled, and other-styled, conservatives act.

And particularly with the rise of Trump, there's been a lot of agitating from the cuckservatives who keep insisting that we aren't "real conservatives". At that point we could waste a lot of time and wage war over a word that doesn't mean much anymore... or we could just abandon it as it's already a lost cause.

@28"is white people’s new deflection from dealing with slavery the “all races have had slaves” thing?"

If there is a contest for the most jaw-droppingly, laugh-out-loud stump-ass stupid comment typed into the Internet in 2016, I nominate the above for the honor.

First, the accusation the only whites ever had slaves is a propaganda talking point created by the slaveowners in the Soviet Union, and spread through their intellectual hamsters here in America for brain-dead Leftists to repeat as a way of puking on the Leftists' forefathers, whose grit the Leftists could not match. It was a libel from the first, and meant to be so.

Second, the obvious fact that slavery has existed everywhere save where Christianity drove it back is too obvious to bear repeating. If this is the first time you have ever heard of the Arab slave raids into Africa (their slave trade was bigger than Spain's) you are historically illiterate.

Third, the Whites 'dealt with' slavery by abolishing it, in England by law, in America by bloodshed and civil war. My ancestors are from Pennsylvania and Ohio, so I have folk in my family who died freeing blacks, a sacrifice for which no black has ever thanked me.

The obsessive need to make endless accusations against the persons least guilty of the wrong is the defining characteristic of the Left. They blame America, the strongest bastion of liberty in history, for slavery, and blame college campuses, the strongest bastion of political correctness in history, for being hotbeds of racism, sexism, Islamophobia.

Silver's a troll. He knows that slavery was never 'uniquely European' in any sense. If he knows any history he must know that there is still slavery in Africa where the pygmies are 'hereditary servants' of the Bantu tribes around them.

Neat how they just don't call it slavery. But like I said, he knows all this and is simply trolling.

As to the linked article I read it. The man is so blinded by his ideology and assumptions that he is either repeating shibboleths 'obsession with guns and drunkenness' or deliberately disingenuous. He also does a fair amount of pearl clutching.

One of the commenters kept bizarrely and mindlessly repeating that Sailer is racism. As if his name is a type of racism. That man is a foot soldier in the war against noticing.

@46. John Wright June 07, 2016 10:07 AM"What gives? What caused the change in terminology?"

William F. Buckley happened and his having to accept "we have got to accept Big Government for the duration." Conservatives and libertarians split, then Patrick Buchanan happened and to differentiate between Buckley's new conservatism and Buchanan's old conservatism; paleo-conservatism.

The definition has been in flux for decades, mainly because W. Buckley slowly read important thinkers out of the conservative pantheon.

'He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.'George Orwell

James Dixon wrote:> before europeans invented it as such, slavery was not a condition that was defacto inherited from parent to child.

Now, there you may have a valid point. I'd have to do some research to verify it though.He doesn't, actually. As has already been proved by the citation of Islamic slave law, one could also go to the public library or local Netflix and get a copy of The Ten Commandments to see a much older example. The practice of birth slavery has been around literally for millennia. Blaming that on white people is absurd.

Cowen's six-point description of "neo-reaction" was considerably better than I expected, although as one commenter suggested, the notion of community should be there.

Vox has suggested that when you evaluate a politician or thinker, you should determine whether they are "puking on western civilization". Agree strongly, and I'd like to add a question to be asked when somebody is making an argument for immigration, indentured workers, or imperial power: "You mean 320 million Americans aren't enough?"

The alt-right is now only beginning to question the authority of the establishment and Cowen and his fellow cucksters are wanting in its defense. Today one of the least liked or respected men in the country Paul Ryan joined the choir in delegitimizing the authority of the establishment by crying "racist" at Trump for the actions of some Brown Ubermensch. We should thank that idiot.

I'm predicting war in this country within a year, everyday from now on will be loyalty tests of your racial submissiveness till one day the gun is picked up and someone gets a face full of lead.

Cowen's six-point description of "neo-reaction" was considerably better than I expected, although as one commenter suggested, the notion of community should be there.

Vox has suggested that when you evaluate a politician or thinker, you should determine whether they are "puking on western civilization". Agree strongly, and I'd like to add a question to be asked when somebody is making an argument for immigration, indentured workers, or imperial power: "You mean 320 million Americans aren't enough?"

@John WrightThe obsessive need to make endless accusations against the persons least guilty of the wrong is the defining characteristic of the Left. They blame America, the strongest bastion of liberty in history, for slavery, and blame college campuses, the strongest bastion of political correctness in history, for being hotbeds of racism, sexism, Islamophobia.

They accuse, so that they can gain power over it. The other things they care not for, so they don't bother accusing.

A perfectly fine analogy, which the sole reservation that I, at least, still refer to bundles of sticks as faggots, and refer to bold happiness as gay.

But your reply does not answer my question. I am a conservative. Four months ago on this blog, if I had said that, everyone here would assume I mean conservative as opposed to 'establishment republican' meaning small-gov, separation-of-powers, gun-toting, Christ-loving, pro-family, strong-military, mistrustful of big government and big business.

Now, everyone here uses it as a term of abuse, to refer to the exact same thing, four months ago, you all were using the term 'neocon' or 'GOP establishment' to refer to: globalist, pro-crony-capitalism, Wall-Street-Incest-with-DC, pro-abortion, fuck-the-bible-thumpers, rule-of-man-not-rule-of-law.

Why did you switch the label? Why are you calling the name I call myself to refer, for example, not to what Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have in common (and they have more in common than what separates them) but to what Jeb Bush and Barack Obama have in common (and they agree with each other on all points where I disagree.)

Who or what marred the brand name? When Derbyshire and Anne Coulter was booted out of the good graces of National Review, I assumed National Review had lost it right to call itself conservative, not that Coulter and Derb (and I) were now a part of some new faction with a new name.

If y'all here are using the word conservative to refer to people who don't favor the original intent of the US constitution and don't know jack about history, this word simply does not describe me.

What is the word you use for someone who believes 1. reality is real 2. truth is when thoughts and statements reflect reality 3. beauty is when art reflects natural or divine glory 4. life is sacred 5. family life is sacred 6. the Rights of Man (life, liberty, property) ergo liberty and equality are sacred. God is sacred.

Add to this a love of one's flag and ancestors, a loyal to one's posterity, and a distrust of sudden or violent social change, and you have a crisp and clear picture of what it means to be a conservative.

But you gentlemen neither use the word to mean this, no provide me with any other word to use to describe myself.

I have never had this problem on the Right before, only on the Left. They go through backflips of misdirection and bad definitions to prevent me from having a word to use to refer to myself and those of my camp.

@80"They accuse, so that they can gain power over it. The other things they care not for, so they don't bother accusing."

More to the point, anyone actually guilty of the accusation would not give a flying flip of the finger. It did not disturb Nero that he owned slaves, nor Mohammed, nor the Rajas of India, nor the Mandarins of China, nor the Pharaoh of Egypt.

There are no abolitionist societies before years when Christian martyrs bled or Christian missionaries visited.

'Well, if you are an example of Conservatism, then no, I'm not. BTW what have you and your movement conserved?'

The Ted Cruzifers and #NeverTrumpers spoiled the use of the word. And since what is called Conservatism these days doesn't conserve anything, it's not much to aspire to.

The Conservatism you signed up for was a coalition. Now one party of that coalition, the Always War/More Immigration faction, that has been dominant for 20 years, has decided to break the coalition because they have lost their control of it.

You can hang on to the label, or you can build a new coalition. It seems that the label wasn't yours (or ours) to begin with, it belonged to the PermaWar faction.I think Free Yeomen like yourself would fit in well in a coalition with the alt-Right, but that's your call.

@58"And particularly with the rise of Trump, there's been a lot of agitating from the cuckservatives who keep insisting that we aren't "real conservatives"."

AHA! So the people who say 'America First' is not 'conservative' are the ones who tainted the brand.

Well, bugger them. The conservative principle of federalism and the Catholic principle of subsidiarity both demand the power be kept as close to the people as possible: my faith comes first, then family, then clan, then the glorious Commonwealth of Virginia, then the Republic we share with Yankees, then the West in general, and humanity against the Martians, Solars against Interstellars, Orion Arm against the Galaxy, Milky War against Andromeda, and Local Cluster against the Bastards in the Horologium Supercluster.

Those guys are not conservative, they are merely anti-Trump and hypnotized by that great red dragon of deception called the News.

If they want the third world moved here, call them Globoservatives, because they are serving the globalists.

Apparently Muslims do not want their history to be known. I went to my copy of the Reliance of the Traveler and the section on slavery and manumission (K32) was left untranslated as being "no longer current," but the editor assures us Islam is basically abolitionist.

I found a translation online however:https://mdharrismd.com/2015/03/03/translation-of-the-manual-of-islamic-sacred-law/

With respect to the children of slaves, it states, "If the father and mother were brought as slaves all the children are considered slaves. Being a slave is inherited from parents to child (K32.2)." I recommend reading the whole section and the rest of K32.

If you want to see how the problem of children in slavery is dealt with by the Romans, see the Institutes of Justinian Section 1.3 (ingenuus means free-born, as opposed to servus, meaning slave, and libertinus, meaning freed-man):

"A person is ingenuus who is free from the moment of his birth, by being born in matrimony, of parents who have been either both born free, or both made free, or one of whom has been born and the other made free; and when the mother is free, and the father a slave, the child nevertheless is born free; just as he is if his mother is free, and it is uncertain who is his father; for he had then no legal father. And it is sufficient if the mother is free at the time of the birth, although a slave when she conceived; and on the other hand, if she be free when she conceives, and is a slave when she gives birth to her child, yet the child is held to be born free; for the misfortune of the mother ought not to prejudice her unborn infant. The question hence arose, if a female slave with child is made free, but again becomes a slave before the child is born, whether the child is born free or a slave? Marcellus thinks it is born free, for it is sufficient for the unborn child, if the mother has been free, although only in the intermediate time; and this is true. "

As an aside, if you have the time, I would recommend reading at least the Institutes of Justinian from the Corpus Iuris Civilis, the Roman Law is one of the great accomplishments of European man.

Yes. New cultures are always formed at the edges, not in the centers of mass and gravity. What has changed in the very recent past—within this year, actually—is that conservatives have decided that Trump supporters, nationalists, and non-interventionists are not worthy of the label. The alt-right has been read out of the movement, and discovered that they are not alone. The conservative movement and the conservative label have long been the flawed brain-child of William Buckley, but we more or less considered ourselves part of it anyway. Now that we've been read out and found that the Birchers are our true historical precendents anyway, we're mostly all comfortable with abandoning the label that has moved on to something else without us. It was a matter of time before that happened, I believe, but events have put the inevitable into fast forward.

"What is the word you use for someone who believes 1. reality is real 2. truth is when thoughts and statements reflect reality 3. beauty is when art reflects natural or divine glory 4. life is sacred 5. family life is sacred 6. the Rights of Man (life, liberty, property) ergo liberty and equality are sacred. God is sacred."

Iconoclast, perhaps.

More seriously, the field seems to be in flux. What do you think you should be called? There is a small-but-nonzero chance that you may be able to make it stick.

Mr. Wright, You can call yourself a Conservative and attach the traditional definition to it, but since the neocons have contaminated the Republican party it means something different to the people who participate in the American government under the Conservative banner.

Right definitions of words is the sole source of clear thinking, honor and honesty. I get what you are saying and largely agree, but I hate to see where the captains, of which I'm not one, are arguing over the precise terminology instead of seeing to the matters of war.

Well, there needs be a way to reconcile keeping words meaning what they mean, and being able to hold a conversation through an internet forum without every post having to clarify whether by "conservative" I mean conservative, Conservative, Republican, Establishment cuck, etc. etc.

Kratman's capital punishment for linguistic matricide comes to mind as an appropriate solution.

Your comment merits its own post, which I shall do this week. But there are two reasons:

1) The research that Red Eagle did for Cuckservative which revealed that "conservatism" is not truly an ideology, but rather an attitude.

2) The behavior of many influential conservatives in response to Trump. They've been reading the Right out of "conservatism" for decades, but now it has reached the point that many ex-conservatives reject the label.

Let the neocons have it. We don't need it. Conservatism is a failure; it has conserved nothing.

Alexander wrote:Also, Western civilization observably predates Christianity, and claiming otherwise is as absurd as claiming British prosperity is historically tied to the European Union.Only if you expand Western civilization into something beyond what it normally means, which has the side effect of making it unrecognizable. Western civilization requires three things: 1) the legacy of the classical civilization that preceded it, 2) Christianity, and 3) the legacy of the Germanic tribes and their organization via Salic law and other similar traditions.

If you take Christianity out of the mix, you end up with something like the pagan Anglo-Saxons who invaded Britain. That is not Western civilization in the sense that anyone could recognize it. If you take the Germanic tribal traditions, Salic law, and whatnot out, what you get is something like Eastern Europe—not necessarily a bad result, all things considered, but hardly Western civilization.

Western civilization is not classical civilization.

I would go even farther and say that Western civilization is equivalent to the civilization that developed within the Hajnal Line in the Middle Ages as a descendant of all three of those pillars. Anything else is not recognizably Western civilization.

NR Writer: You've made a number of statements and comparisons. I want to take a stab at them.

1) Jesus was a Jew. Yeah, I don't think anyone would argue that He was of the house and lineage of David. Scripture is pretty clear cut on that.

2) Christianity is a Jewish sectDoes that make Christians Jews? If not, why? Hasidism is also a Jewish sect, no? So does that make Christians functionally equivalent in Jewish thought to Hasids and therefore equally Jewish?

3) Jews are the Chosen people.Sure. But Chosen to do what? Chosen for what purpose? Christians would say Jewish rejection of Jesus as the Messiah means they flubbed up what it was they were Chosen for as a people. Doesn't mean God won't fulfill His promises to them but it also doesn't mean that Christians are obligated to pretend that failure to accept Jesus Christ as the Son of the Living God was anything but a serious error.

4) It is a Christian's sworn duty to protect and help Jews in everything they do.This is just dumb. It is a bit like saying that since NASA's rocketry program was founded by Werner Von Braun, and since Von Braun was a Nazi, then it follows that NASA's rocketry program should help to advance the goals of the National Socialist Workers Party. One can recognize Christianity's Jewish roots without accepting that therefore all Jews are sacrosanct along with everything they do.

@91. John WrightEarnest foolishness, while foolish, is not a great sin that needs my forgiveness. You are a very earnest man and I respect that, but fighting a great fight over how people perceive the word "conservative" is foolish.

How could it be anything else, when we do not control how the otherwise official "conservative" apparatus acts? When we do not control the media and we do not control any aspect of the schools?

The enemy has a most solid fortress on that perception, and attacking them where they are the strongest when we are already outnumbered is the foolishness I speak of.

Right and clear definitions of words are a great and marvelous thing. If we could have immutable and clear definitions throughout all of time, we'd all be better off for it. Unfortunately, languages don't work that way, and definitions become muddied as they get misused. And we are not in a position to educate every other person in the world as to their misuse.

And all of that aside, how is any of this necessarily different from a No True Scotsman?

However, in responding to what ((())) was defining as western civilization, I was correct. His point was clearly that without the Jews, all the goy would be delegating one hand for shit-shoveling duty.

Western Civilization may be a tripod, but western civilization - Civilization in the west - existed in a higher form than we see in most part of the world today.

Words change definitions all of the time. [Some of] my ancient forefathers used the word karros to refer to chariot. This word was borrowed into Latin as carrum or carrus. This in turn was changed via linguistic drift into carre where it came to England where the majority of my ancestors learned it from the Normans.

Today, we do not overly worry that when we say car, our ancestors meant horse-drawn chariot while we do not. Semantic drift happens. It's always happened. It always will. Context is important in understanding the writings of our forefathers. It's perhaps lamentable for traditionalists who honor and value the way things used to be... but it is anyway, and it is useless to insist that it not be.

As for the "Jesus was a Jew" path of the discussion,..paraphrasing here because I'm not good at quoting scripture: The Messiah told his apostles to spread his word and if they encountered a village where the people didn't want to hear it, to shake the dust of that place off your feet.

Israel doesn't want to hear it.

Consequently, the majority of America's problems stems from the fact that it has refused to "shake the dust" of Israel off its feet.

The Chosen people are those who are Abraham's descendants, not of the flesh, but of faith. Those who are circumcised in their heart, not [necessarily] of the flesh, are the real children of Abraham..

Jeremiah 7This is the Lord’s message to Jeremiah: 2 “Jeremiah, stand at the gate of the Lord’s house. Teach this message at the gate:“‘Hear the message from the Lord, all you people of the nation of Judah. All you who come through these gates to worship the Lord, hear this message. 3 The Lord All-Powerful, the God of Israel, says: Change your lives and do good things. If you do this, I will let you live in this place.[a] 4 Don’t trust the lies that some people say. They say, “This is the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord![b]” 5 If you change your lives and do good things, I will let you live in this place. You must be fair to each other. 6 You must be fair to strangers. You must help widows and orphans. Don’t kill innocent people! And don’t follow other gods, because they will only ruin your lives. 7 If you obey me, I will let you live in this place. I gave this land to your ancestors for them to keep forever.8 “‘But you are trusting lies that are worthless. 9 Will you steal and murder? Will you commit adultery? Will you falsely accuse other people? Will you worship the false god Baal and follow other gods that you have not known? 10 If you commit these sins, do you think that you can stand before me in this house that is called by my name? Do you think you can stand before me and say, “We are safe,” just so you can do all these terrible things? 11 This Temple is called by my name. Is this Temple nothing more to you than a hideout for robbers? I have been watching you.’” This message is from the Lord.12 “‘You people of Judah, go now to the town of Shiloh. Go to the place where I first made a house for my name. The people of Israel also did evil things. Go and see what I did to that place because of the evil they did.[c] 13 You people of Israel were doing all these evil things. This message is from the Lord! I spoke to you again and again, but you refused to listen to me. I called to you, but you did not answer. 14 So I will destroy the house called by my name in Jerusalem. I will destroy that Temple as I destroyed Shiloh. And that house in Jerusalem that is called by my name is the Temple you trust in. I gave that place to you and to your ancestors. 15 I will throw you away from me just as I threw away all your brothers from Ephraim.’

People who wanted to conserve baseball, apple pie, and Chevrolet were pushed out of "conservatism" by those who are more interested in conserving Wall Street, Israel First, and the right to hire the cheapest people one can find on the globe. It just took a long time for many to notice.

The Leper's bell of Newspeak. This is the first time I have encountered Newspeak on the Right.

It sounds like y'all are now using the word 'conservative' to mean 'RINO' because Trump is less conservative than Ted Cruz: and so you are calling all conservatives RINOs because so you hold Cruz supporters to be.

But that leaves you with the incoherent vocabulary: because either you must say Derb and Ann Coulter and I are not conservatives (the word we have always used to identify ourselves) or you have to claim we are RINO globalist establishmentarians. Either claim is absurd.

Or you can ask the conservatives to change our name: but to what? I have not changed my ideals one iota.

Those who followed the Messiah didn't feel as if they were creating a new religion. They were following the correct path of their existing religion,...and those Gentiles who chose to join them were grafted on.

Those Jews who chose not to did so because, as the Messiah said, they are not of God. They chose not to follow the Messiah because they are lying, murdering, children of the Devil.

John 8:42-47.

Don't bitch at me if you've got a problem with that. Take it up with the Messiah. It's his words,...not mine.

If you want to make the argument that the Messiah was an anti-semite,...good luck.

It sounds like y'all are now using the word 'conservative' to mean 'RINO' because Trump is less conservative than Ted Cruz: and so you are calling all conservatives RINOs because so you hold Cruz supporters to be.

@121 John WrightThe point is that "conservatives" have always been about keeping things the way they are, but at the same time, because of individual liberty and equality and whatnot, they always treat progs as if their opinions are valid and to dialogue with them, and worse, to beat down "reactionaries" because they're mean to the progs.

And if the progs succeed in pushing their agenda through and changing things in their favor, then "conservatives" always resign themselves to the new situation and actually end up beating up on "reactionaries" who want to actually roll back the progs.

Conservatives act as friction for the progs, but as progs to the "reactionaries".

And it has been this way for hundreds of years.

The only reason we still have gun rights, for example, is because "conservatives", unbeknownst to themselves, took the alt-right attitude of refusing to budge one inch to prog wheedling. (And who knows how long that will last if Hillary wins, because SCOTUS.)

But that leaves you with the incoherent vocabulary: because either you must say Derb and Ann Coulter and I are not conservatives (the word we have always used to identify ourselves) or you have to claim we are RINO globalist establishmentarians. Either claim is absurd.

False dichotomy. We don't have to do anything of the sort. We don't call ourselves conservatives and we don't care if other people do or not.

We are ignoring conservatives, both those who are attacking us and those who are in effective alliance with us. We're busy taking the fight to the enemy. If you do that, you can be a Nazi or you can be a conservative or you can be a card-carrying member of the Cthulhu Party and we'll let you stand with us.

You don't seem to understand that "you're not conservative" is a rhetorical weapon of the other side, just as "you're a Nazi" is. In both cases, the Alt-Right response is: "we don't care".

Snidely Whiplash wrote:I've always loved how theists and Jews feel no shame at all in telling me what I as a Christian believe, and if I don't believe it I'm not a real Christian.

GKC:

I will give one curious example from one of the best and most brilliant of the Zionists. Dr. Weizmann is a man of large mind and human sympathies; and it is difficult to believe that any one with so fine a sense of humanity can be entirely empty of anything like a sense of humour. Yet, in the middle of a very temperate and magnanimous address on "Zionist Policy," he can actually say a thing like this, "The Arabs need us with our knowledge, and our experience and our money. If they do not have us they will fall into the hands of others, they will fall among sharks."

One is tempted for the moment to doubt whether any one else in the world could have said that, except the Jew with his strange mixture of brilliancy and blindness, of subtlety and simplicity. It is much as if President Wilson were to say, "Unless America deals with Mexico, it will be dealt with by some modern commercial power, that has trust-magnates and hustling millionaires." But would President Wilson say it? It is as if the German Chancellor had said, "We must rush to the rescue of the poor Belgians, or they may be put under some system with a rigid militarism and a bullying bureaucracy." But would even a German Chancellor put it exactly like that? Would anybody put it in the exact order of words and structure of sentence in which Dr. Weizmann has put it? Would even the Turks say, "The Armenians need us with our order and our discipline and our arms. If they do not have us they will fall into the hands of others, they will perhaps be in danger of massacres." I suspect that a Turk would see the joke, even if it were as grim a joke as the massacres themselves.

John Wright wrote:It sounds like y'all are now using the word 'conservative' to mean 'RINO' because Trump is less conservative than Ted Cruz: and so you are calling all conservatives RINOs because so you hold Cruz supporters to be. Now you're deliberately being obtuse.

But that leaves you with the incoherent vocabulary: because either you must say Derb and Ann Coulter and I are not conservatives (the word we have always used to identify ourselves) or you have to claim we are RINO globalist establishmentarians. Either claim is absurd. Or we can abandon the use of a word that is not descriptive in any way of who we are and what we believe. As a movement, Conservatives don't and haven't and can't and don't even want to conserve anything. From what you have said regarding your beliefs, I don't think you want to conserve the current situation. Calling yourself conservative is an inaccuracy at best. In so far as what is left of the Conservative Movement(tm) has any beliefs, after drumming out of their company anybody to the right of Mitt Romney, those beliefs do not encompass anything you want, with the possible and expendable exception of your rights under the 2nd amendment.

Or you can ask the conservatives to change our name: but to what? I have not changed my ideals one iota.

John Wright wrote:But that leaves you with the incoherent vocabulary: because either you must say Derb and Ann Coulter and I are not conservatives (the word we have always used to identify ourselves) or you have to claim we are RINO globalist establishmentarians. Either claim is absurd.

I am reminded of the scene in the third season of Avatar: The Last Airbender where the heroes go to a play in the Fire Nation which turns out to be a satire of their own adventures, and they are horrified at how they are depicted.

No, Mr. Wright, you and Derb and Coulter are not like that, but the entirety of the rest of conservatism is.

@John WrightVD hit it on the head more squarely than me. You're trying to approach a rhetorical attack from the other side as if it were dialectic.

It's identity politics, yet again. They drummed us out of "conservative" as if it had any merit after their shenanigans, and fully expect us to come crawling back in abject humiliation, or to be somehow fully unmasked as being on the left the entire time. They don't care about the absolute proper definition of conservative and probably never did. It's just them versus everyone else, and if you're with them then you're conservative.

Either way, it's unreasonable to expect a static definition of conservative from us when they haven't had a static working definition in decades. That's about when most people started realizing that "conservative" doesn't mean spit.

SciVo wrote:Note the implicit argument that it's Nazi-minded to reject Jewish supremacism. I swear, it's like they can't even hear how they sound to other people.Which is why all of the people complaining about the "On anti-semitism" debate on Heat Street totally missed the point. They got caught up in the trees and couldn't see the forest, which is: look how ridiculous the arguments presented by Mensch appeared to anyone observing. She can't hear how she sounds to anyone else. Vox cleverly let her string out her own rope, tie her own noose, and stick it around her own neck.

Snidely Whiplash wrote:Some suggestions:Free YeomanryPaleo-ReactionaryTraditionalistBuchannann coined Paleo-ConservativeI like Restorationist. There's nothing of the dregs of our post-civilizational status quo that I'm really interested in conserving anymore. I want to restore that which was taken from us.

Fixed that for you - Europe's loss of identity and the white man's misplaced sense of guilt have led to more Africans in chains than at any other point. But there's no time to worry about what the fellow black man or the arab is up to - we've got white males trying to dictate which bathroom perverts can use!

> Our friends at wikipedia describe slavery in Islam with this little nugget.

Thanks for that bit of research, Alexander. I think that pretty much demolishes all of the given arguments.

John, the neo-cons stole the title of conservative from you, and are now claiming you're not a true conservative because you aren't willing to abandon your principles and attempt to subvert the will of the voters. We're merely recognizing that they were successful in doing so.

Gaiseric wrote:I like Restorationist. There's nothing of the dregs of our post-civilizational status quo that I'm really interested in conserving anymore. I want to restore that which was taken from us.

Jacksonian works for me. Technically it's more of an instinct than an ideology, but I think that just makes it more resilient. You can't reason with it, so you can't subvert it with pseudo-dialectic.

In fact, one mental model for the Alt-Right's positions (as presented in PA's list) is an articulation of an informed Jacksonian's response to our times, and its internal arguments -- pushing for evidence, poking holes in reasoning -- are the development of an apologia.

John isn't part of the problem here is that most of the commenters like those who call in to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. They act like a kind of groveling obsequious slugs reflecting Vox's proclamations to the extent that like Trump or Hillary it doesn't matter what he says they will change on the fly. They kind of worship Vox. I am a proud conservative by the way. I apologize, Vox, I read you wrong.

This is not really the place to debate Replacement Theology, but that is a very idiotic claim to those who really value the Scriptures.

We are not beholden to follow everything Jewish people do today, but many promises to the Jews remain to be fulfilled and they will be fulfilled. Ignoring those is not a bright thing to do, especially for someone claiming to be a Christian.

Many Jews have brought the results on themselves, but we are wise to not jump on the bandwagon. Just let them do their thing and let God deal with them.

Remember the valley of dry bones was dead at the start, just as the modern Jewish state is dead in many ways. God still brought life to those bones.

SciVo wrote:Jacksonian works for me. Technically it's more of an instinct than an ideology, but I think that just makes it more resilient. You can't reason with it, so you can't subvert it with pseudo-dialectic.As in Andrew? Or Stonewall?

Austin Ballast wrote:We are not beholden to follow everything Jewish people do today, but many promises to the Jews remain to be fulfilled and they will be fulfilled. Ignoring those is not a bright thing to do, especially for someone claiming to be a Christian.But most of those promises weren't to the Jews per se, but to the entirety of the Israelite nation. The Jews were a prominent subset of that, but only part thereof.

So unless you've got a theory of where the Lost Tribes went and what happened to them and what anonymous group now bears their spiritual lineage, talking about the Jews as if they were the entirety of the Israelite nation is just as much ignoring the promises of God and therefore just as much a not bright thing to do.

Paul Lutgen wrote:They act like a kind of groveling obsequious slugs reflecting Vox's proclamations to the extent that like Trump or Hillary it doesn't matter what he says they will change on the fly.

Yeah, you've been reading here for weeks and yet... you project your own political positions on Vox. Now you make this absurd claim. Most of the regular commenters here have told Vox straight up that he's wrong on at least one occasion. I know I have.

May I suggest actually reading the comment threads before you make such obviously false statements. An upgrade in IQ or reading comprehension would seem to be in order as well.

We are not beholden to follow everything Jewish people do today, but many promises to the Jews remain to be fulfilled and they will be fulfilled. Ignoring those is not a bright thing to do, especially for someone claiming to be a Christian.

Galatians 3:29. Kissing up to the apostate (((tribe))) because they were once the chosen people is not only stupid, it's un-biblical.

Gaiseric wrote:SciVo wrote:Jacksonian works for me. Technically it's more of an instinct than an ideology, but I think that just makes it more resilient. You can't reason with it, so you can't subvert it with pseudo-dialectic.

Gaiseric wrote:So unless you've got a theory of where the Lost Tribes went and what happened to them and what anonymous group now bears their spiritual lineage, talking about the Jews as if they were the entirety of the Israelite nation is just as much ignoring the promises of God and therefore just as much a not bright thing to do.

John isn't part of the problem here is that most of the commenters like those who call in to Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage. They act like a kind of groveling obsequious slugs reflecting Vox's proclamations to the extent that like Trump or Hillary it doesn't matter what he says they will change on the fly. They kind of worship Vox. I am a proud conservative by the way. I apologize, Vox, I read you wrong.

You must be new here. This is the first presidential election in which MOST of the commenters agree with me on the candidate of choice.

So unless you've got a theory of where the Lost Tribes went and what happened to them and what anonymous group now bears their spiritual lineage, talking about the Jews as if they were the entirety of the Israelite nation is just as much ignoring the promises of God and therefore just as much a not bright thing to do.

Keep telling yourself that. I choose to believe all of what is written. I was just grafted in, I didn't replace the source.

The angel told Mary Jesus would sit on the Throne of David, not some other throne, as just one example. That throne will return, but not until He does.

Paul also talks significantly about restoration to the Jews, but I guess you ignore that stuff since it doesn't fit with the narrative.

Austin Ballast wrote:Paul also talks significantly about restoration to the Jews, but I guess you ignore that stuff since it doesn't fit with the narrative.The plain fact is that most Jews worldwide became Christians in the 1st century. The remainder are those that explicitly rejected Jesus claim to be the Messiah. Which means they have explicitly rejected him and are to be handed over to damnation.Christians are, literally, the Chosen people now, not the Synagogue of Satan that hates Christ and hates Christians.

"You don't seem to understand that "you're not conservative" is a rhetorical weapon of the other side, just as "you're a Nazi" is. In both cases, the Alt-Right response is: "we don't care"."

Before about four months ago, you and and your fans would have reacted to a RINO calling a conservative 'not a true Republican' with disbelief, and understood that the RINO is the one betraying the cause.

I understand the tactic of clouding the rhetorical waters and calling a deer a horse. I have just never seen it done on the Right before. That was always an unique Leftist mental pathology.

Perhaps we can distinguish our positions by following the example of Edison and Tesla, and call one camp Alternating Right, and the other Direct Right.

@Josh Silver.."..for the record, NO race outside of europeans had a system that made slavery a *personhood* instead of temporary condition.".That's weird Josh because the Jews were enslaved in Egypt for four hundred and thirty (430) which is MUCH longer than the lifespan of a normal person - it says so right there in the Old Testament:."And God spoke to this effect—that his offspring would be sojourners in a land belonging to others, who would enslave them and afflict them 400 years. (Acts 7:6)".Don't you feel better now that your lie has been exposed and destroyed Josh?

Before about four months ago, you and and your fans would have reacted to a RINO calling a conservative 'not a true Republican' with disbelief, and understood that the RINO is the one betraying the cause.

No, that ship sailed when the Republican Party bent its rules on Mitt Romney's behalf to keep out Ron Paul. At that point, it became obvious that the Republican Party was part of the problem, not the solution. The reaction to the Trump campaign merely confirmed it.

I understand the tactic of clouding the rhetorical waters and calling a deer a horse. I have just never seen it done on the Right before.

I can only assume you haven't read SJWAL yet. We are actively adopting their tactics.

John Wright wrote:I understand the tactic of clouding the rhetorical waters and calling a deer a horse. I have just never seen it done on the Right before. That was always an unique Leftist mental pathology.

I would say rather that we are no longer calling the deer a horse. What specifically, that is a part of the political culture right now, do you want to conserve, John? Honesty? Long gone.Beauty? Gone.Integrity? GoneVirtue? Gone.Freedom? Gone.A realistic view of men and women? GonePeacefulness? GoneOrderly society? Gone.Voluntary communities? Gone.What do you want to conserve?

VD wrote:You must be new here. This is the first presidential election in which MOST of the commenters agree with me on the candidate of choice.When you're right, you're right. Sometimes you're right and you're talking about things with which your audience may not be very familiar, so they argue with you from a position of ignorance (my own conversion to an HBD informed position from blank slate matches was sparked by discussions here where I disagree with you quite strongly... until I did some more independent research.)

In the case of the Trump campaign, I would imagine that we're a group that's pretty self-selected to prefer it already.

Austin Ballast wrote:Paul also talks significantly about restoration to the Jews, but I guess you ignore that stuff since it doesn't fit with the narrative.I don't know what narrative you think I'm following, so I'm going to assume that you're just posting a virtue-signaling non sequitur. I was mostly just being flippant, but if you want to have a more substantive discussion about the Jews, the Christians, the Lost Tribes, and anything else, this isn't really the place for it.

there is also no race except europeans who kidnapped and transported human beings in order to enslave them and their offspring for life

actually I hear the mooslims did the same thing to Europeans - they took millions of Europeans as slaves, captured them on the beaches and raided further inland.

in other words, we whites need to deal with our white sh*t, . slavery is a white thing.

I did. I finally granted myself AMNESTY for something I didn't even do. and when others start bellyaching about this and that and the other I think about the half a million Union soldiers who gave they arm, they leg, they life and for who? What was in it for them to kill their southern brothers?

How does it feel? Knowing that your evil is being laid bear and is about to be destroyed?

funny I was gonna say the same thing about (((you))) (if you name really is josh silver)

and what does it say about a people who name themselves goldberg, silverstein, kristol??????

p.s. thanks to people like you for opening my eyes about jews. I used to be a big supporter of Israel and used to laugh off the stuff about jews owning the media and Hollywood. now I pay attention to names, noses, skin colors :)

@170 Which would completely go with his message, that alt right is raciiiiiiiist.Better to destroy his argument, expose his lies, biaises, and blatant racism anti-white.

Also "worst traits, such as the obsession with guns"Yeah, guns, the best way to defend yourself, the tool that makes everyone equals, is evil.Cowen don't want people to be able to defend themselves. Especially Whites! He wants the Guns to be controlled, which means concretely they are all in the hands of authorities. But of course authorities will never abuse that huge power, isn't it Cowen ? And weak, dependent people will never be abused ... Never seen before !Ultimately being anti-gun is being pro ... slavery.

And after advocating for slavery, this POS denounces a few lines later ... slavery.

Conservatism has been revealed to be nothing more than classical liberalism, i.e. yesterday's progress.

Your #6 sacred thing 'The rights of man' is hostile to the other enumerated sacred things you hold dear and cannot be reconciled. No, we cannot have 'just a little progress.' Let us hear no more of these pernicious 'rights of man' that have so troubled the peace of late, let us instead hear of the duties of men.

I for one have no desire to 'conserve' any aspect of progress or the liberal order. It is falling and should be pushed not propped up.

@168 p.s. thanks to people like you for opening my eyes about jews. I used to be a big supporter of Israel and used to laugh off the stuff about jews owning the media and Hollywood. now I pay attention to names, noses, skin colors :)

The mainstream is very good at making some theories seem okay to dabble with, others dangerous, and some completely beyond the pale. So, read about UFOs...silly, but completely acceptable. Faked moon landing? Now you're making people nervous. Anything to do with the Jews? Okay buddy, get in the van with the nice people in white coats.

@p-dawg. I actually read recently a decently convincing article, although outside of the mainstream academic press, that made a good case that the linguistic changes that formed the Germanic languages from earlier undifferentiated Indo-European can be systematically explained via a Hebrew adstrate or substrate. This would mean that all of the Germanic ethic groups from German, Dutch, Scandinavian as English would all be subject to adv expanded British Israelism.

It also gives new meaning to a number of prophecies in the Old Testament, including Jacob's project that Joseph would be a fruitful vine who's branches would go over the wall (implying spread of the tribe of Joseph well beyond the confines of the Holy Land) and the bear in Isaiah that suggests that not until Christ comes again will Ephraim cease to envy Judah or Judah to vex Ephraim...

" Austin Ballast June 07, 2016 3:13 PM BTW, the myth of the lost tribes is just that, a myth. Read a bit farther ahead and you will find all the tribes were represented when Israel returned from captivity...."

Yes tiny pieces of every tribe returned from Babylon because they were the children of those captured in the conquest of Judah and at the sack of Jerusalem. But that does not make them the only members of those tribes still alive at that time it just makes them the last mentioned Chosen People in the Old Testament before Jesus was born.

We know from scripture the Assyrians relocated large numbers of the ten tribes of Israel to various places within the Assyrian empire. From other historical sources we have evidence of where some of those folks went after the Assyrian empire fell just like we have some evidence where the remaining Assyrians went. They didn't go back to the promised land.

There is also linguistic evidence of Hebrew being related to Welsh.

Someone here mentioned heraldry, which is another piece of evidence for where they ended up.

But none of this is evidence of inclusion in the Kingdom of God as children of our Father in heaven.

@34I'm increasingly dubious that the description is sufficiently coherent. It reminds me too much of "practical idealism". I find Alt-Right to be a more useful label at the moment.

@89 The conservative principle of federalism and the Catholic principle of subsidiarity both demand the power be kept as close to the people as possible: my faith comes first, then family, then clan, then the glorious Commonwealth of Virginia, then the Republic we share with Yankees, then the West in general, and humanity against the Martians, Solars against Interstellars, Orion Arm against the Galaxy, Milky Way against Andromeda, and Local Cluster against the Bastards in the Horologium Supercluster.

And that Catholic principle is subsumed under the broader (Catholic) titles of Catholic Social Teaching, Distributism, and Christian Democracy. There's also the very similar Protestant concept of Sphere Sovereignty.

They are all much closer to libertarianism than modern conservatism when it comes to limiting the size of government. Vox would probably be closer to these than to normal libertarianism.

I would even say the English version of Christian Democracy as promoted by G.K. Chesterton and Henri Belloc assumes or needs nationalism and more direct democracy in order to function and endure.

The problem still remains that none of these terms make for a catchy "-ist" word.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blogPlease do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.